RE: Reflecting new-MAM/SAM definition in diff-te drafts
"Francois Le Faucheur (flefauch)" <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | gmane.ietf.tewg |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
Jerry, >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Ash, Gerald R (Jerry), ALABS [mailto:[email protected]] >> Sent: 20 May 2003 17:35 >> To: Dimitry Haskin; Francois Le Faucheur (flefauch) >> Cc: Ash, Gerald R (Jerry), ALABS; [email protected]; Lai, >> Wai S (Waisum), ALABS >> Subject: RE: Reflecting new-MAM/SAM definition in diff-te drafts >> >> >> Dimitry, Francois, >> >> > > o SUM (Reserved (CTc)) <= Max Reservable Bandwidth, >> > > for all "c" in the range 0 <= c <= (MaxCT-1) >> > > >> > > However, this formula is incorrect for DS-TE when per-CT >> > > LOM's are used, since the above formula only reflects the Max >> > > Reservable Bandwidth for the entire link, and does not >> > > reflect the per-CT local overbooking factors. So what >> > > formula do you suggest when per-CT LOM's are used? >> >> > Wouldn't 'Reserved (CTc)' it the above formula already >> accounts for the >> > overbooking multiplier at CTc? I don't see how this >> formula precludes >> > per-CT LOM's to be used. Please explain. >> >> Are you then proposing these formulas: >> >> 1. When per-CT LOMs are not used: >> >> o SUM (Reserved(CTc)) <= Max Reservable Bandwidth, >> for all "c" in the range 0 <= c <= (MaxCT-1) >> >> 2. When per-CT LOMs are used: >> >> o SUM (Normalized(CTc)) <= Max Reservable Bandwidth, >> for all "c" in the range 0 <= c <= (MaxCT-1) >> >> Is that correct? Please confirm, and/or give the formulas >> you propose. Yes, this is exactly what I propose. I think this is similar to what you were proposing, only using "Max Res Bw" instead of "Max Link Bw". Sorry I didn't make that very clear before. Cheers FRancois >> >> Thanks, >> Jerry >>